On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:19 AM, James Elmore<James.Elmore@cox.net> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>> I'm just thinking there would be times when you wanted a gradient a fixed
>> distance from the end, not just the beginning, not necessarily a mirror of
>> the beginning measurement, so it would be nice to have a way to specify that
>> without a lot of calc(), which is even harder to read. A second slash
>> version doesn't seem so bad for that. Basically just a slash instead of a
>> comma there.
>
> I was thinking last night (away from my beloved computer so I could not send
> immediately ;) and thought about the possibility of using negative numbers
> for both percentages and lengths. Positive values are distances /
> percentages of the length FROM THE START of the gradient line; negatives are
> FROM THE END of the line. This makes the gradient syntax simpler -- no extra
> slash. The developers will need to handle more 'overlap' possible problems
> -- especially with mixing lengths and percentages from both start and end,
> this could be harder. What do the rest of you think of this?
Only problem with that is it prevents us from using negative
lengths/percentages to specify points before the starting-point, which
is currently allowed.
I dunno if this would be useful in any way. I also considered
negative numbers working the way you suggest. I just didn't think
they were useful enough to justify adding language in the spec,
especially when we can always just calc() it.
~TJ